On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, NELA joined the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and a group of over two dozen women’s, employee, and civil rights organizations in supporting the Plaintiff-Appellants in their appeal in Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, pending currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This long-running case involves a challenge to systemic sex discrimination in pay and promotion opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. After being moved from court into arbitration, the plaintiffs in this case argued successfully to the arbitrator that they are entitled to proceed as a class. The defendant convinced the district court to reverse the arbitrator’s decision to certify the class, and the plaintiffs have appealed. Among other important arguments, the amicus brief highlights how essential class actions are to efficiently and effectively addressing pervasive workplace abuses, while also protecting class members from the retaliation they are far too likely to face if forced to proceed individually. The brief was drafted by our colleagues at the NWLC and NELA member Carolyn Wheeler from Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP (Washington, DC).
… Read MoreNELA AARP Amicus Brief – Reagan-Diaz v. Sessions (D.C. Cir.)
Sharon Reagan-Diaz v. Jeff Sessions in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
… Read MoreLCCHR NWLC NELA Amicus Brief_Janus v. AFSCME, et al._011918 (U.S. Supreme Court)
On January 19, 2018, NELA joined a coalition of over 80 civil and workers’ rights groups in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Respondents in Janus v. AFSCME, et al., pending currently in the U.S. Supreme Court. This case involves a challenge to “Fair Share” rules, which require non-union employees to pay a modest sum to a union who represents other workers in the same bargaining unit, in exchange for the numerous resources those unions expend on behalf of union and non-union workers alike. The brief brings to the Court’s attention the primary role that public sector professions have played in providing equal employment opportunity and economic empowerment for members of some of the most vulnerable, disenfranchised people in America. Further, it highlights the importance of “Fair Share” fees in allowing public sector unions to continue to provide essential benefits and protections for both union and non-union workers. The brief was drafted by our colleagues at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the National Women’s Law Center, with assistance from colleagues at Jenner & Block LLP and the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.
… Read MoreNELA Signs On To Coalition Letter On Reforming Procedures In Congress For Combating Harassment And Discrimination
ACLU CWLL NELA Amicus Brief_Legg v. Ulster County_2d Cir_011118
On January 11, 2018, NELA joined a coalition of civil rights and gender equity groups in signing an amicus brief filed by the ACLU Women’s Rights Project (WRP) and the Center for WorkLife Law (CWLL) in Legg et al. v. Ulster County (2d Cir.). This case concerns the appropriate interpretation and application of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS (2015), as applied in a case alleging that a particular policy has a disparate impact on pregnant employees (in this case, corrections officers). In arguing that the ruling of the district court should be reversed, the amicus brief highlights the central purpose of the PDA, as reaffirmed in Young, which is to assure that employers do not disadvantage pregnant workers as compared to their non-pregnant peers. Specifically, the brief challenges the lower court’s holding requiring the plaintiff not only to demonstrate that the light duty policy in question had a disparate impact on pregnant workers, but also to further prove that all or most pregnant officers will require light duty to continue working. As the brief ably demonstrates, this ruling turns the applicable disparate impact analysis on its … Read More
NELA Amicus Brief: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court)
On Thursday, December 7, 2017, NELA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Respondents in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, et al. At issue in this case is whether automobile dealership Service Advisors are exempt from the overtime protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the second time in as many years that the High Court has reviewed this case, and NELA is proud once again to support the efforts of these employees to ensure that they receive full compensation, including overtime pay, for all of the hours they work. NELA’s amicus brief argues persuasively that a plain reading of the text of the FLSA supports the Respondents’ contention that they are not exempt from the statute’s overtime protections. In addition, the brief marshals a compelling array of sources in demonstrating that the broader remedial purposes of the FLSA also support the Respondents’ position. The brief was drafted by NELA member Jamie Golden Sypulski (Law Office of Jamie Golden Sypulski, Chicago, IL).
… Read MoreAn Expert on How the Entertainment Industry Can Evolve to Protect Against Sexual Harassment
NELA Signs On To Letter To Senate Judiciary Committee Opposing “Lawsuit Abuse” Tort Reform Hearing
November 7, 2017
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
On November 8, 2017, the Committee is holding a hearing to examine “lawsuit abuse.” The
focus is apparently on whether the legal rights of individuals and small businesses should be
taken away. The undersigned organizations urge the Committee, in the strongest possible terms,
to reject such a course of action.
Today, those who have been injured, defrauded, cheated, discriminated against or otherwise
harmed, struggle to even get into civil court. Many individuals and businesses with legitimate
claims have been entirely blocked from bringing cases, disrupting the health, safety and
economic security of American families. Their legal rights have been severely weakened by
hundreds if not thousands of so-called “tort reform” laws that have become law around the
country in the last 40 years, a series of Supreme Court decisions that have stripped everyday
people of their 7th Amendment rights (including allowing wrongdoers to unilaterally block class
actions against them), and other action and inaction by Congress.
Just last … Read More
Brotherston, et al. v. Putnam Investments, et al. (1st Cir. ERISA)
On November 8, 2017, NELA joined our colleagues at AARP in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellants in Brotherston, et al. v. Putnam Investments, et al., pending currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The district court’s decision in this case incorrectly found that the defendant had prudently selected and monitored the investment options—which included its own proprietary funds—in its 401(k) plan. In providing important historical context regarding the development and enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the amicus brief demonstrates the need for ERISA’s rules governing the responsibilities of retirement plan trustees to be carefully and rigorously enforced. The need for retirement plan administrators to demonstrate the highest levels of prudence, loyalty, and care is of particular importance in the case of defined contribution retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans, as even relatively small additional fees or losses due to risky investments can have a large impact on the amount of savings available to plan beneficiaries upon retirement. The amicus brief was drafted by NELA member Mary Ellen Signorille (AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC) with input from NELA ERISA expert Jeffrey Lewis (Keller Rohrback, LLP, Oakland, CA).
… Read MoreTrump Organization Uses Forced Arbitration Agreements To Keep Workers From The Courts
NELA Joins Coalition Letter Opposing Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act Of 2017
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
October 23, 2017
Dear Members of the United States House of Representatives,
We urge you to oppose H.R. 732, the so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. The
bill prohibits settlement agreements where the United States is a party from including certain
“donations” to non-federal actors, primarily non-profits, educational, and community-based
organizations.
Under existing laws, settlements from federal enforcement actions can include payments to third
parties to advance programs that assist with recovery, benefits, and relief for communities
harmed by lawbreakers, to the extent such payments further the objectives of the enforcement
action. H.R. 732 would cut off any payments to third parties other than individualized restitution
and other forms of direct payment for “actual harm.” That restriction would handcuff federal
enforcement officials by limiting the ability of federal enforcement officials to negotiate real
relief for harms caused to the public by illegal conduct that is the subject of federal enforcement
actions.
This bill would be a gift to lawbreakers at the expense of families and communities suffering
from injuries that cannot be addressed by direct restitution because the bill would prevent federal
law enforcement agencies from negotiating forms of relief … Read More